Could the need for profitability destroy a great golf course ?

[DMoriarty]

Dave Moriarty,

When and where did I or TEPaul ever cite NGLA as the paragon of penal golf ?

You are kidding, right?   How about on your "Love and Hate" thread, where you argued that Scotland's courses were penal and cited NGLA and GCGC as American examples of penal golf?  

As for TEPaul, I dont know whether he has cited NGLA as penal or not, but he takes so many different positions chances are he has cited NGLA as penal somewhere or another.    

I would suggest that the average golfer would find holes 1-4 very difficult and that a huge bottleneck would occur, backing up the golf course for hours.  Add holes # 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 to the mix and play would be at a snails pace, reducing the amount of play
I would also think that firm, fast conditions wouldn't be entertained, and that the golf course would be kept wet, destroying some of the greatdrastically, which would reduce revenue, which would cause access fees to increase.
 uses of the architecture.

Patrick, I disagree.   Might I suggest that your conception of public access golf is sort of a lowest common denominator approach?  Many regular public golfers look for the same things you do in a course . . . interest, challenge, conditions which allow for options, etc.    I am sure that there are enough like-thinking public golfers on long island to fill NGLA many times over.   It might be a trick to weed out the others, but it could be done . . .

As for slow play, it can exist anywhere, public or private.  But it can be managed if the management is truly committed to doing it.  The pool of golfers is deep enough that a public NGLA could build a clientele of public golfers who played plenty fast . . .

[frank_D]

brother Patrick_Mucci

isn't upholding the architctural intergrity of the golf course ultimately up to a "governing" entity (ie a board of directors a committee an elected body etc) which is charged with this fiducuary obligation ?  i don't necessarily equate a lack of resources with a lack of integrity

also it seems there are MANYplaces (open to the public which are like your example) where the "masses" suffer six hour rounds at $250 plus per round to play a golf course of superior architecture with a multitude of nuances (read obstacles)

a private course should be afraid of becoming or providing a PUBLIC ACCOMODATION - which i believe dominates most of the restricted access policies today - not economics

[John Goodman]

Let's not leave Dave's deeply insightful detour just yet.  Patrick M., I think he's got a point.  In fact, it's so insightful that it might just work for the public housing market.

We all know that there is a shortage of quality public housing, and the private market is vastly overpriced in many areas of the country.  In many of those same areas, lots of people, six-figure income types, live in houses where the square footage is vastly underutilized.  (Indeed, a lot of those people, despite their incomes, are burdened under mortgage payments that are way higher than they need to be.)

This can only mean one thing:  a market dislocation.  I bet there is no one on this site who really needs 100% of the square footage of their house all the time, or 100% of the shelf space in their Subzero, or for that matter who use more than one (or possibly two) toilets on a daily basis.  Most probably have an extra toothbrush in a bathroom drawer that's not be utilized at all.

It should be apparent at once that we don't have an undersupply of housing; we really have an oversupply.  Economics would therefore dictate that the folks with the big, not fully utilized houses should - maybe for a week or two at a time, or a month or whatever - rent out their back bedrooms and spare baths to those folks who can't find affordable housing elsewhere.  They get affordable housing, the fat cats get help paying their mortgage, and the great thing is, it lowers the cost of housing for everybody!  Everybody wins!

Something to think about, right, Dave?        

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave Moriarty,

You are kidding, right?   How about on your "Love and Hate" thread, where you argued that Scotland's courses were penal and cited NGLA and GCGC as American examples of penal golf?
An example and a paragon are two different things.[/color]

As for TEPaul, I dont know whether he has cited NGLA as penal or not, but he takes so many different positions chances are he has cited NGLA as penal somewhere or another.

I'll let the shy and reticent TEPaul answer for himself.[/color]    



Patrick, I disagree.   Might I suggest that your conception of public access golf is sort of a lowest common denominator approach?

You can suggest it, but it's not accurate.
The cross section of public golfers is probably not that different from the cross section of private club golfers.[/color]

Many regular public golfers look for the same things you do in a course . . . interest, challenge, conditions which allow for options, etc.

I would take issue with that.[/color]

I am sure that there are enough like-thinking public golfers on long island to fill NGLA many times over.   It might be a trick to weed out the others, but it could be done . . .

As for slow play, it can exist anywhere, public or private.  But it can be managed if the management is truly committed to doing it.  The pool of golfers is deep enough that a public NGLA could build a clientele of public golfers who played plenty fast . . .

Here's where your inexperience hurts your case.

When play is heavy at NGLA, holes 1-4 create a problem with pace of play, even when the golfers using the golf course are restricted to 7 handicaps and less.

If massive bottlenecks occur for these fellows, the same and worse would occur for higher handicaps.  Ergo, the quest for profits would force the owner to make modifications to speed up play, for the purpose of increasing revenue and profits.

The other alternative is to adjust the price the product upwards for its flaw.  The flaw being the courses inability to handle heavy play.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm just floating a premise -- that members' desire for exclusivity has an economic cost on people other than themselves.[n]

Members don't care about other people.  They have no concern for outsiders/nonmembers.

Droping the public accomodations issue is a failure to deal with the realities of private clubs.  It also destroys your premise, but for discussion sake, okay.[/b]

Pat, I guarantee that there are a ton of clubs that have 2 one-hour periods every day.

Name five (5)[/color]

My hunch is that GCGC could sell half an hour of times at $500 and get it or whatever.  You can do the math for yourself, but even one crummy half an hour could cut your dues by a TON.

At what price to membership inconvenience and intrusion ?[/color]

And would you be any worse off for it?

YES[/color]  

If you showed up and the pro said "we've got 3 groups teeing off and then you're good to go", would that bother you in the least?

YES[/color]

Especially if you knew what that half an hour was every day, whether it's 9:30 am or 2:00 pm or whatever and could EASILY work around it?  

So you want to close the tee from 9:30 to 11:30 or 2:00 to 4:00 every day so that outsiders can play the golf course ?

You speak about this as if I'm the only member, conveniently forgetting that 399 other members, their guests and families want to play as well.

Why should members be restricted and inconvenienced by outsiders, non-members who don't pay initiation fees, dues and assessments ?[/color]

If they couldn't go in the clubhouse?

That's a seperate issue[/color]  

12 guys a day?  

Now you're down from 48 guys a day to 12 guys a day.
Even at your $ 500 green fee and your 100 days a year, you're down to $ 600,000 or $ 1,500 per member, per year.
[/color]
Would it cause you NOT to want to be a member?
YES.  [/color]

Would it ever prevent anybody from joining?
YES   [/color]

Wouldn't the lower dues actually have the effect of helping the club retain the holy grail of most clubs -- younger members?  

NO, it would have the exact opposite effect, it would present the club as a semi-private club.  In addition, why would anyone join when it would be cheaper to be a non-member and play any day they want during the heart of the season, your 100 days per year[/color]  

You're making a chicken little of an argument if you think 12 guys a day paying a giant premium to play your golf course would ruin anything for anybody.

Now you've backed off your 48 guys a day to 12 guys a day.
Now you want to charge $ 500 instead of $ 150.
Again, why join the club when it's cheaper to play when you want.  No need to pay initiations and assessments, and how many times a year would I have to play before it equaled dues, club storage charges, etc., etc. ? It's a bad idea[/color]

All it would do is cut your dues and let some people with an affinity for something special see how great it is.
It's not all about the dues.  Private clubs are a luxury and members want unrestricted use of the club, and not limitations imposed by outsider play.  In addition, members don't care about outsiders seeing how great their course is.
They pay and care about their needs.... ONLY.[/color]

  The sky would not crash down on your head -- trust me.  In the eyes of some, it might even improve the club's image.
NO Dave, it would have the opposite effect, it would diminish the club's image.  It would be thought of as a semi-private club, open to all, and not exclusive.[/color]

More to follow

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave,

You said:

Your premise is also flawed.  You choose as an example a club that you declare is in financial trouble, yet, they would fill every tee time every day for the 100 days the deal is open.

If it was in trouble, it must be because it doesn't offer a good product, so why would anybody, at any price want to play it.

Maybe it's a club that is just fricking overpriced.  Nobody wants to join.  But its a good golf course.

Isn't that a conflict in your premise ?  How can you state:
IT'S A GOOD COURSE BY NOBODY WANTS TO JOIN ?  ?[/COLOR]

I could name one relatively new club here in CHicago that a lot of people want to play (some guys here have made the trip to play it), but they want something like $80K to join and the course is a pain in the ass to get to.  I will not name it, but it's pretty easy to guess.  They've got somewhere south of 50 members so far.  There is no way that club is not struggling.  No way.  So the options are lower the price or open it up at certain times.  The members' desire for exclusivity might be the end of the place if they don't do something....can you think of anything else to do?
Sure, you do what every other club does, you hold a special window of opportunity where the first ___ of applicants joining get a discount on the 80 K.  And, you fine tune that price until it works.  It's no different then rental appartments and airline seats.  Low capacity, lower the price, high capacity, you raise the price.  It's called pricing on market demand.  But, the key element is to retain the private nature of the club, not to convert it to a semi-private club[/color]

In my mind, the question is simply whether in some cases, the artificial constraint on supply of tee times created by the desire for privacy, exclusivity, ease of show-and-go access -- whatever you want to call it -- has an effect on anyone other than the members themselves?   It's a yes or no question.  

Dave, who cares ?  Do you think the members care about the effect their club has on outsiders ??  You're dreaming if you do.[/color]

My HYPOTHESIS is that it might.  And the theory lies in the fact that there are unused tee times at private clubs.  This is not a condemnation of the practice!!  It's a question.
Then I'll give you the answer.
Unused tee times are the goal of the private club.
That is a desirable condition, one of the luxuries of being a member.  And, the more unused tee times the better.
In fact, NO TEE TIMES is one of the best features a private club can offer.[/color]

YOu ask the question "why would anybody join a club if any schmoe off the street could just fork over $___ and be able to play the golf course?"  Well, I'll take a stab at that:  ease of access is certainly a part of it, family ties play a role, pride/prestige/social standing clearly play a role, better conditioning, generally, plays a role.  We all know the reasons why.....

Ease of access ?  To a semi-private club.
Prestige ?  In belonging to a semi-private club ?
Social Standing ?  In belonging to a club open to the public ?
You're confusing a private club with an open access facility[/color]

The question is whether those things are all lost if the golf course (as opposed to the clubhouse) is open for outside play every once in a while on off times.   I'm not so sure that they are.  Hell, we have on this site a member of the R & A.  The clubhouse is closed, but the golf course is OPEN!!  I guess being a member of the R & A isn't prestigious.

Now you're really getting desperate.
You're going to equate a public course, in Scotland, that's the seat of the R&A with local clubs in America.
What's exclusive about being a member of the R&A if you can play the golf course every day and not be a member ?
Clubhouse privileges ?[/color]

I guess that if Pine Valley opened up for an hour a day of outside times at $1000 a head, being a member there wouldn't mean anything anymore?  Is that what you're saying?  Why would you join Pine Valley if any old schmoe could play it for a grand?  Because it's a fricking great course to be a member of!  That's why.  Heck, you and I can both hop a plane and go play Pasa next week, but it's still a great place to be a member of if you're a golfer, as opposed to a status chaser, isn't it?

You're getting even more desperate.  You're redoubling your previously redoubled efforts, but to no avail.

The members at Pine Valley have no interest in lowering their dues at the expense of being inconvenienced by outsiders.

And, if Pine Valley became a semi-private club it would diminish the stature of being a member of the club.[/color]

Now, take this to  a more realistic example.  CLub X is struggling.  CCFAD Y by Tom Fazio down the street just opened, and club members - sick of paying through the nose for a so-so golf course -- are quitting in droves.  They'll just be social members and go play their golf at CCFAD Y.  What to do??  You tell me.

You don't mean "more realistic" you mean HYPOTHETICAL example.

Let's see, it's a so so golf course, and it's very expensive, but they had a ton of members, who are now quitting in droves.
It's another example of your creating contradictory premises.  And, as a HYPOTHETICAL question, it's a waste of time addressing.[/color]

Dave, this is a debate you can't win
Go home, it's over.
They've turned out the lights,
And...... even Elvis has left the building[/color]

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Are you aware of White Manor G.C. in Philly? Apparently a severe need for profitability has done wonders for their golf course by all accounts. It's a bit of an unusual situation, for sure, but everyone says it's done wonders for the golf course. I don't know that I'd have called the course "great" before but it sure wasn't bad at all.

The next question is what will a much better golf course do for their profitability?